Table 2.
Results of structural equation models predicting young adult functioning
| Multidimensional functioning | Positive functioning | Negative functioning | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | 95% CI | p | β | 95% CI | p | β | 95% CI | p | |
| Family environment T1 | |||||||||
| Family dysfunction | −0.07 | (−0.12 to −0.02) | 0.023 | −0.09 | (−0.15 to −0.04) | 0.008 | 0.06 | (0.01 to 0.11) | 0.044 |
| Parental warmth | 0.06 | (0.01 to 0.10) | 0.043 | 0.08 | (0.03 to 0.14) | 0.013 | – | – | – |
| Parental rejection | – | – | – | 0.02 | (−0.04 to 0.08) | 0.611 | – | – | – |
| Parental overprotection | −0.13 | (−0.18 to −0.08) | <0.001 | −0.13 | (−0.19 to −0.07) | <0.001 | 0.11 | (0.07 to 0.16) | <0.001 |
| Peer environment T1 | |||||||||
| Peer status | 0.06 | (0.01 to 0.11) | 0.040 | 0.06 | (0.01 to 0.12) | 0.074 | −0.06 | (−0.11 to −0.01) | 0.033 |
| Peer affection | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.01 | (−0.03 to 0.05) | 0.641 |
| Family environment T3 | |||||||||
| Family dysfunction | −0.14 | (−0.20 to −0.08) | <0.001 | −0.09 | (−0.16 to −0.02) | 0.024 | 0.15 | (0.09 to 0.20) | <0.001 |
| Parental control | 0.01 | (−0.05 to 0.06) | 0.838 | – | – | – | 0.05 | (0.01 to 0.09) | 0.063 |
| Parental anger | −0.13 | (−0.18 to −0.08) | <0.001 | – | – | – | 0.14 | (0.09 to 0.18) | <0.001 |
| Parental guilt inducing | −0.13 | (−0.19 to −0.07) | 0.001 | −0.12 | (−0.18 to −0.06) | 0.002 | 0.13 | (0.07 to 0.19) | <0.001 |
| Parental problem solving | – | – | – | 0.08 | (0.04 to 0.13) | 0.004 | – | – | – |
| Peer environment T3 | |||||||||
| Peer support | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Practical help peers | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Peer fights | −0.04 | (−0.09 to 0.02) | 0.245 | −0.05 | (−0.11 to 0.01) | 0.137 | 0.03 | (0.02 to 0.11) | 0.246 |
| Interaction effects | |||||||||
| T1 family dysfunction × T1 peer status | – | – | – | −0.07 | (−0.11 to −0.02) | 0.031 | – | – | – |
| T1 parental rejection × T1 peer status | – | – | – | −0.07 | (−0.11 to −0.02) | 0.024 | – | – | – |
| T1 parental overprotection × T1 peer affection | – | – | – | – | – | – | −0.06 | (−0.10 to −0.02) | 0.007 |
| T3 parental control × T3 peer fights | 0.06 | (0.01 to 0.10) | 0.041 | – | – | – | −0.06 | (−0.09 to −0.03) | 0.005 |
| T3 family dysfunction × T1 peer status | −0.09 | (−0.15 to −0.03) | 0.017 | – | – | – | 0.09 | (0.04 to 0.14) | 0.002 |
| T1 parental rejection × T3 peer fights | – | – | – | −0.07 | (−0.12 to −0.02) | 0.024 | – | – | – |
| Model fit indices | |||||||||
| χ2 | 862.75 | 960.09 | 960.09 | ||||||
| RMSEA | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ||||||
| CFI | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | ||||||
| SRMR | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ||||||
| R2 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.14 | ||||||
Structural equation models are based on maximum likelihood with robust standard error estimation (MLR), sample size n = 2228. For ease of interpretation, scores for negative functioning were reversed back such that a higher score indicates more negative functioning. Significant effects surviving the correction for multiple testing (p < 0.00066) are shown in bold.